wait really lmao, no freakn way
2 Likes
its not from @kreyton_m1e1’s twitter & it was posted on the forums in january months before
not saying it isnt from kreyton just its not from the twitter post
Of course its not from the twitter post, it is heavily cropped. It’s from an upload to twitter dating back to early 2025 or from one of his reddit posts.
Here is the file date for it, Jan 3, 2025.
Sorry, but there was a post further up showing that there were mission packages that pushed the tanks weight up to 90 tons.
A mission package may not mean a permanent fixture of equipment, but it sure does mean that it’ll be operating in the field for days or weeks with logistics support.
And if it’s expected to be an option in a combat deployment, since you know the US military planners aren’t idiots, they’ll knoe there’s the possibility of combat scenarios where the vehicle will be unable to quickly access a seevice depot.
So your whole argument undoes itself since you aren’t driving the tank out for 20 minutes and then going back to the depot bro.
Your argument is emotionally driven. Again, army mission planners fully expect and plan for the potential of unplanned extended combat deployments where supply lines and services can and will be disrupted meaning the tank has to be able to endure the useage of its mission packages weight.
Also stop arguing. Just stop. The logic that the army has talked about AND implemented based on paperwork and tanker testimony shows the armor HAS been upgraded.
The issue should be an increase of GBR being raised and abrams moving up.
1 Like
ye scanned them on jan 3rd
1 Like
This much fuss over not crediting some rando from Twitter.
2 Likes
What Gaijin said is actually plausible if you believe that the US military hasn’t improved its armor efficiency or material tech for 50 years and still relies on basic steel. Gaijin is literally giving the SEPv3 the worst possible defensive stats :D
As we delve deeper into classified modern vehicles, get ready for more “NATO tech can’t be good” from gaijin cuz we got no source to correct them :)
3 Likes
But he played thousands of games with the Abrams, even the best players like him can’t maintain such a high WR in their most played vehicles. Renzo is a much better player than me, just look at my stats with the T90M and the T80BVM, i can maintain a high WR too.
@_Renzo hes played ONLY 88 MATCHES in T80BVM… Jesus
While he played THOUSANDS at Abrams, and still light years better than you…
2 Likes
Hello hi I have much higher wr in NATO tanks than Russian ones :)
2 Likes
Ahahahha Stop making me laugh already.
At least you can laugh about your own skill issue, I lowkey respect that.
8 Likes
as the distance of the POV looking at Abrams increases, the ratio of LFP:UFP gets greater; or surfaceAreaLFP/surfaceAreaUFP become greater. Of course if you are above the turret and ~30? meters away, the UFP and LFP will look equal. It’s like a limit equation: if you extend the POV of the camera out to infinity meters, the LFP become a much larger surface area from the POV in comparison to the UFP.
Well, after update drops and M829A3 alongside it, I expect the 12.0-13.0 russian winrates to plummet, no more W to victory
Implying you could do that already…
1 Like
Well there will still be plenty of players like Dead_Undertaker that will need to be carried, so I don’t have that much faith in winrates plummeting.
1 Like
What’s this nonsense about needing two extra tons just to stop 1980s-vintage APFSDS rounds? Are they implying U.S. composite armor tech is no better than Russia’s Soviet-era blindly stacked steel plates?
Hell, even back in the 1990s, the Germans engineered a crew-killing level armor package—boosted protection by up to 70%—for under three tons. That upgrade included:
Composite armor slabs wrapping the turret ring and roof
Composite inserts for the hull sides
Full-coverage spall liners along the hull
And all this while adding significant volume to the armor array.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been redefining armor efficiency for thirty years—with weight-to-performance ratio being a core design driver from day one.
18 Likes
Can I note that that the mine protection on the SEP V3 is significantly lighter than previous versions, I dont know if you took that into account when calculating the weight increase for the body protection but the source is https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a2c.htm.
Also the armor plate above the hulls NERA should be 38.1mm instead of 19mm. On older Abrams variants it can be argued that its only 19mm and looks thicker because of the welding. But on any close up front picture of the SEP V3 its clear that its much thicker than 19mm, logically 38.1mm as the rest of the upper front plate. That would be a realistic buff that could actually help a little against KE penetrators.
9 Likes
RIP this mf here man xD
9 Likes
I’d love to see where the bug reporting manager somehow read it all went to the turret, when they previously said there was nothing to specify the changes.